“Transphobic,” “You didn’t have to” and “dog whistle.”

What do those three phrases have in common? 

They are three of the most ridiculously over-used phrases in order to accuse someone of saying (or writing) something discriminatory/racist/sexist/bigoted/whatever, even if the person never had any intention of doing so.  When people use there it is one way of making it hard to have a rational discussion or debate about….. anything, really.

I’ll use real-life examples to illustrate where I am coming from…

---

Transphobic.

I already aired my feelings about gender dysphoria on a previous blog, so I’m not going to get into that here.  But really, unless a person is an author of one of those “bathroom laws,” I seriously doubt that anyone is actually “transphobic.”  The definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something.  I don’t think anyone save for those bathroom law people actually fear transgender people. 

I’ll give a recent example.  I made a comment that it’s stupid how transgender “women” who have not yet had the reassignment surgery call heterosexual men “bigoted” or “discriminatory” for not wanting to date them.  The person I was talking to said, “how so?”  I said, “Because a transgender woman who’s pre-surgery is basically a man wearing makeup and a dress who’s pumped full of hormones, I wouldn’t want to go out with one of them either!”

Yep, you guessed it.  I got called transphobic. :/  I said “I don’t have a fear of them, I just wouldn’t date one that’s pre-surgery and still has a dick!”  That should be enough IMO.

---

You didn’t have to.

This is a phrase used when someone wants to accuse you a making a veiled statement aimed at a certain person or group disguised as a benign comment.  Problem is, too many people use it to accuse others of making veiled statements when it was not their intention at all. 

I’ll give a recent example.  I was explaining to someone why a person would choose Parkland (FL) as a place to live.  I said, “People tolerate the high real estate prices and property taxes to live there because Parkland has extremely low crime rate, unlike say Opa-Locka (FL) where you pretty much need to wear a bulletproof vest to take the trash out.” 

Someone heard me and said, “That’s discrimination.” 

I asked, “how is it discrimination when I didn’t mention race?”

Person says…. you guessed it, “You didn’t have to.” 

So I guess you cannot even have a rational discussion about crime rates between cities anymore without someone accusing you of making a veiled racist comment.  Real nice huh?

---

Dog Whistle.

This is the “top definition” of a dog whistle from the Urban Dictionary: “Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is ‘in the know’ will take away the secret, intended message.” 

Like the phrase “You didn’t have to,” too many people nowadays use it to accuse others of making veiled statements when it was not their intention at all. 

I’ll give a recent example.  I was telling someone how a friend of mine, when her daughter was a teenager would refuse to allow her to go to the Coral Square Mall after 5PM because that’s the time when “gangs of seedy looking punks” would start to congregate outside.

His response?  “Tell you friend that is so fucking racist!”

When I said I clearly didn’t mention race, he said “That right there is a fucking dog whistle man!”

I was stumped because at the time, the only “dog whistle” I knew was the, well, actual dog whistles that you use on dogs. 

Let’s just say that I’m a grown man in my 30’s and even I refuse to go to that mall after 5PM, but I guess to some people you’re automatically talking about “minorities” when you say “gangs of seedy looking punks.”  Which is odd because the racial markup of Coral Springs (Home of that mail) is still majority Caucasian.

---

Now for the rebuttals:

Calling a pre-op transgender woman “a man wearing makeup and a dress pumped full of hormones” is indeed transphobic.  What, so in order to be considered a “woman” to you, she has to have the reassignment surgery?

It’s not transphobic, it’s the TRUTH!  Don’t like it, go hide in your safe space!  To answer your second question, YES!  That’s all I’m going to say, if you don’t like it too fucking bad.  I’ll repeat it again: One cannot be transphobic if he or she does not fear transgender people.  Refusing to date a trans person who still has their reproductive organs from their “former” body is not, I repeat NOT transphobic.

Don’t want to be accused of making a thinly veiled racist comment?  Don’t use a city that is majority African-American in your “crime-rate comparison.”

Racial markup has nothing to do with it and that is the problem with “you didn’t have to.”  I could compare Parkland to a  high-crime city with a majority white population like Palm Beach Gardens and some idiot will accuse me of calling the people of PBG “white trailer trash.”  So it’s a no-win situation that stifles comparative discussion.

When people say “gangs of seedy looking punks” they are almost always talking about minorities.  Don’t want people to accuse you of making a dog whistle?  Don’t make a statement like that. 

So a seedy looking punk can’t be Caucasian?  What planet are you from?  Just so you know, I talked to someone about Chicago's gun problem.  I made the statement, “Chicago doesn’t have a gun problem because of the gun control laws, they have a gun problem because of all the street gangs where even the cops are afraid to venture into some of those areas!”  Yes, I got accused of making a dog whistle.  Yes, this is why we can’t have a rational debate on this kind of stuff.

---

Conclusion…

These phrases (along with others) are the reasons why people have to walk on eggshells or not have any sort of discussion on various issues because the people brainwashed by the PC-brigade will accuse them of being discriminatory/racist/sexist/bigoted/whatever.  In fact these phrases don’t even have to be mentioned they’ll just accuse you of being one of those things.

Here are some:

Saying “people on welfare” is somehow racist, it’s now “individuals on public assistance.”  News stations are actually saying this now, which incredibly stupid. 

Saying a job should promote and/or hire based on merit and qualifications rather than gender is somehow “sexist” now and calling companies out for it can actually get you fired.

Saying a woman in Israel can freely wear a sleeveless tank top without having to worry about being murdered in an “honor killing” unlike the neighboring countries is somehow “bigoted” and “islamaphobic.”

Owning a piece of property and refusing to rent to people on section 8 based on prior experience is “racist” (Even though the majority of people on it are Caucasian).

A person wants to know why you spent $100K more on a house in area B than a house in area A, you tell him that it’s in a much better location, he tells you “That’s a dog whistle.”

To extend on that, I told someone if money was not an issue and I wanted to stay in Broward County I would only move to one place: Parkland.  Somehow, despite not mentioning race this was somehow “racially motivated.”

A fashion blogger can write, “Like it or not some types of clothing do not look good or look ridiculous on certain body types” and she’ll be accused of “body shaming” and “fat shaming” without ever mentioning weight or size, not to mention “sexist” even though she’s a woman herself.

I once knew someone whose parents lived near Monsey, NY where I used to live.  He told me that his father was in sales (Don’t remember exactly what) and he hated dealing with the people there because “getting people to spend over the bare minimum was like pulling teeth” and “they were always trying to barter.”  I told a family member of mine this and he blatantly accused this guy’s father of being an anti-Semite, despite never mentioning any religion (For those that don’t know Monsey has a predominantly Hasidic Jewish population but other people live there as well).

In closing…. 

As you can tell, because the PC-brigade has pretty much brainwashed people into thinking that everything nowadays is somehow discriminatory/racist/sexist/bigoted/whatever you are pretty much rendered silent to avoid being accused of such.  It it something that our forefathers never imagined when the drafted the 1st amendment. 

And I’m out….

The topic of abortion and a woman’s reproductive rights.

One thing about me is that even though I am not a liberal, I am very vocal about my support for women’s reproductive rights. Which is why I can never fathom myself to be a republican or “conservative.”

Most republicans constantly like to assault Roe Vs Wade every chance they get under their allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky. The democrats like to champion to keep it upheld, as it should.

Now, while abortion is sometimes used as a form of birth control which I don’t really agree with (But women should still not be denied safe and legal access regardless as sometimes they are simply not ready for a child), there are times when abortion is necessary – and a reason why women need to have safe and legal access to them without obstruction or requirements whose sole purpose is to make the woman feel like shit for wanting to have one.

Here are the common ones I could think of:

Saving the mother’s life.

I did research on this, and high risk pregnancies not only put the mother’s life in danger if she carries the baby to term but there is a high chance that the baby will not be born alive either (And if it is, it may only survive for a few hours or days).

Knowing that, why would anyone not have an abortion?

Let’s just say this: If I met my dream girl, got married to her and she got pregnant but the doctors told her there is a high chance (As in 90% chance) that she will die if she gives birth, then hell yeah she is having the abortion and trying again for a less riskier pregnancy…. One that won’t result in death. If I met my dream girl, nothing (Short of something like a car crash) will take her away from me.

I typed something similar on a discussion forum years ago and this one person wrote:

“That’s pretty heartless. You would seriously kill your child to have her?”

I didn’t answer the way I wanted to because I didn’t want to be thought of as a selfish prick, but I’ll answer now:

Yes, I would do it. Every time. I may be a selfish prick, but I would be a selfish prick that still has my wife at the end of the day!

Now I know someone is going to ask me this question:

“What if your dream girl wife decides to run the risk of going to heaven to save her child?”

“Heaven,” for fuck’s sake. Please! Sorry, but if she decides to pledge allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky over her well-being and life, then she really “isn’t all there” sanity wise and to be honest is not someone I would want to be in a relationship with, much less marry so I hope to never be put in that situation.

---

Downs syndrome or other birth defects:

After doing research on downs syndrome, it’s pretty easy to see why 70-80 percent of fetuses that test positive for it are aborted.

The number would be higher, but some states have passed laws making abortion illegal if downs syndrome is the reason. Not surprisingly, despite these laws forcing women to carry the damaged fetus to term, the laws do jack shit in helping the woman with the high costs of raising a child with downs syndrome once it’s born.

When a woman carries a fetus to term that tests positive for downs syndrome – again, many times under the allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky – she is in my opinion committing child abuse.

Why do I think that?

Children born with downs syndrome have the mental and cognitive capacity of a small child even when they get into their teenage years and adult life. They have a litany of health issues including heart and lung problems plus they are 15 times more likely to develop leukemia.  They tend to have extreme mood swings. They have shortened life spans, and in many cases when they get older they start to lose much of the mental capacity they still have, so they have to be put into a specialized care center when that happens. They constantly have to hear people telling their parents “you should have aborted when you had the chance.” Hell, even their own mothers are saying it on record. Plus, they require constant adult supervision (either via parent or guardian) because their mental condition many times causes them to act up inappropriately in public and can never be left alone due to said mental condition, so say goodbye to living independently.

Keep in mind, this was everything that I researched and observed! Knowing all this, why would you want to saddle a human being with all these problems? You are not being fair to a child by basically saddling him/her with a very subpar quality of life with no chance of ever elevating out of it, and that is why I would abort any fetus that tests positive for downs syndrome.

Now here is what someone said to me on this topic:

What if they had a prenatal test for say autism, would you abort your child if it test positive?

First off, prenatal testing for autism doesn’t exist yet so that’s a genuinely stupid question. But to answer the question that is asked as if they did exist….

For starters, such a test would have to detect the severity of the autism. I’ll give an example. A family member has a friend’s whose grandson has severe autism. He can’t talk; he communicates by using grunts. He has random and frequent “meltdowns” so bringing him to public places such as restaurants is all but impossible and his mental condition pretty much assures him a stay in an assisted living facility for the rest of his life once his parents are gone. In addition, like a downs syndrome kid even though he’s nearing teenage years he has the mental and cognitive capacity of a small child.

So yes, if such a test detected a severe autism I probably would abort. It’s all about quality of life, and if a test was positive for something that would give a child a shitty quality of life in my opinion you are being crueler to it by carrying it to term then terminating the pregnancy.

By the way, “quality of life” doesn’t just mean medical or physical well-being. When a person with downs syndrome or severe autism gets a job in a certain field they’re not expected to get, it tends to make the local TV news. Why is that? Because their limited mental and cognitive capacity almost always relegates them to jobs like supermarket bagger or cart getter, which is why getting a job that is better than that is, well…. Newsworthy.

By the way, so I don’t have to create a whole new section….

It doesn’t just go for downs syndrome either. If prenatal testing reveals a birth defect that is going to severely affect the quality of life – like a condition that prevents half its skull from forming like this child here - I would abort. Yeah, the link says he is still living. But how good is the kid’s quality of life going to be as he gets older? That is the question I would raise to anyone who finds out that a fetus is going to be born with a severe condition that is going to make its life hell, and in many cases short.

---

Rape.

There is a reason why nearly all pregnancies conceived through a rape are aborted. The biggest reason is that these pregnancies are certainly not wanted, first and foremost. Children of rape are looked at as a constant reminder of the heinous act committed against the mother, so they are oftentimes neglected and treated like shit. That’s not exactly something anyone should go through.

But, there is another reason. Let’s say the mother deems the child not at fault for his/her “father’s” crime, and decides to carry it to term and love it like any other child. Thanks to some states being run by misogynistic assholes, they have passed laws granting the rapist visitation rights. Can you believe this?! Sorry, but a man who conceives a child through rape is not a “father.” He is an unwanted sperm donor, and should be treated accordingly.

But some might say….

“Doesn’t matter he is still the child’s father!”

If you say this, congratulations for being one of the said misogynistic assholes. You want to know why giving rapist’s visitation rights are a bad idea? Because there is a chance he might harm the mother again, that is why! Shame on the people who passed those laws knowing this! To be honest, that is why children of rape who are carried to term are often given up in a closed adoption, because the child will eventually start “digging” to find out info on the man who conceived them, putting the mother’s life in danger.

Now you see my nearly all pregnancies conceived through a rape are aborted?

----

Gender-based abortions.

Pro-life advocates say that people who have gender-based abortions (aka sex-selective abortions) are “selfish individuals who don’t want to deal with having a son or daughter.” While I’m sure some are, the reason for this type of abortion is because some females carry the gene for a disease or condition that only affects a baby if it’s a certain gender. If a mother knows she carries a gene for a condition that is going to say, make a male child suffer greatly, why put a child through hell simply because his only crime was being born male?

A good example is Lenz Syndrome. It’s a very rare inherited condition that causes the affected person to be born with eyes that don’t function, or be born with no eyes at all. It generally only affects males and yes, the mother can be tested to see if she test positive for the gene. I saw this story on one of those evening news-magazine type shows where this selfish mother tested positive for the gene but had not one, not two but three male kids and two were born without eyes and one was born with just one usable eye. How is this being fair to them, knowing that their mother knew ahead of time?

That’s why gender-based abortions exist, not so parents can get out of raising a male or female kid!

---

Incest.

The reasons for this are obvious, so I’m not going to touch on it here.

----

Now for the things that pro-lifers try to pull that try to restrict abortions, or put a woman through physiological warfare just for wanting one:

1. Ridiculous requirements on abortion clinics that only serve one purpose – to shut them down.

You know the ones. Like in the state of Texas, where doctors at abortion clinics had to have admitting privileges at local hospitals or that the walls had to be a certain width.

Thankfully the Supreme Court struck this one down

2. Forcing a woman to get a sonogram before an abortion.

Is there any real reason for this, other than to make a woman feel like shit for wanting to have an abortion? I mean, that is the only reason for this law.

3. Banning abortions in case the fetus tests positive for birth defects.

Click here for info on the infamous law in Indian.

As I mentioned earlier, states pass these laws then do nothing in helping a woman with raising a child with sometimes severe birth defects.

----

Now there is one law that I wanted to get a bit more in-depth on….

Parental consent and notification.

Regarding this, I am fine with parental notification. However, I am against parental consent. I just looked and the states that require parental consent are mostly the southern or "red" states. Go figure.

The reason is simple: There are going to be parents who are more concerned with their allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky over their own daughter’s wants and in many cases, well being.

Let’s give an example, a scenario if you will. Say a 15 year old girl gets a bit too frisky with her boyfriend one night (It happens!) and gets pregnant. The girl wants an abortion, for obvious reasons. The father is okay with it but the mother starts in with her “all life is a gift from god (Barf!) you are having this baby!” bullshit and refuses to let her have the abortion. Then the girl sees a doctor who tells her at best, having the baby will result in never being able to have kids again downs the road to dying in childbirth at worst. She begs her mother to let her have the abortion. Her mother screams, “This was god’s plan you must have this baby!” So this poor girl is now being forced to carry a baby to term that she didn’t want in the first place that puts her life in danger. All because her colossal bitch of a mother (who at this point doesn’t deserve the title of “mother”) wants to pledge allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky over her own flesh-and-blood’s health and well-being.

I will tell you all this: Any parent that forces their daughter to carry a fetus to term even if it will cause harm needs to be charged with felony child abuse, interfering with a child’s medical care (which is a felony, by the way) and if the girl dies in childbirth, murder.

The scenario described above is the exact reason why I am against parental consent. In addition, it can cause young girls to do some pretty irrational things if they knew one of their parents would refuse to let them have an abortion.

Case in point? I’m sure a lot of you remember this girl who threw her baby out her apartment window.

Now don’t get me wrong, what she did was indefensible. That judge who handed down that sentence was a moron, by the way. But back to what she did…. people were speculating as to why the girl would do such a thing.

Allow me to speculate. I mentioned this in an earlier blog, but Nebraska is a state that passed a law requiring minors to get parental consent to get an abortion. If I were a betting man, I can bet that she knew her mother would refuse to sign off on an abortion and got desperate, more so as time went on. When people get desperate, they tend to do some pretty irrational things, as in this case here.

----

Women should not be denied access to contraceptives….EVER.

It’s that simple. There have been talks about employers objection to having to pay for insurance that covers women’s contraceptives. Well guess what? It’s not their bodies! They need to stay out of it and let women have affordable or covered access to the stuff she needs to stay healthy! If they don’t like it, then maybe they shouldn’t run a business if they are going to want to control women’s bodies!

Same thing for a pharmacy. If they don’t want to carry things like contraceptives or the “morning after pill,” then maybe being a pharmacy is the wrong business for them.

---

I admit that this blog kind of fell on the…. Back burner. But since that time there are some things that came up that I want to mention:

---

Oklahoma is trying to pass a law that requires a woman seeking an abortion to get permission from the father of the fetus. Here is why that is a bad idea.

Link to story.

First, it must be noted that the author of the bill linked above called pregnant women “hosts.” As if that wasn’t misogynistic at all! *sarcasm*

Basically, it is exactly what I put: if this bill passes, it would require a woman seeking an abortion to get written permission from the father of the fetus.

The law says that it makes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. But the one glaring omission is that it does not make exceptions for women in abusive relationships.

That right there is why it’s a bad idea. Why would you force a woman to carry a child when she knows that means it’s going to tie her to a man that may end up killing her? You know full well that many abusive men will say “no” simply to be an asshole and spite her.

Also included is a provision that would make it illegal to abort a fetus if it tests positive for a genetic defect or a condition like downs syndrome. Yet again, nothing that provides financial assistance to the women forced to carry the damaged fetus to term.

---

Now for some rebuttals that people reading this will surely ask or want to say that I am going to answer now:

1. What happens if your wife tells you what you want to hear then decides to run the risk of going to heaven if it means carrying the fetus to term?

As I mentioned before I wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with someone like that especially if she “tells me what I want to hear….”

2. If you don’t want to run the risk of your wife taking a chance of going to heaven to save her child don’t marry a woman with deep religious beliefs.

You mean a crazy religious zealot who believes in fairy tales to the point where her health and life is not as important as a fetus that may not be born alive anyway and might kill her? As I wrote previously, not someone I would want to be in a relationship with, much less marry.

3. Here’s a thought…. If you can’t stand the thought of raising a baby with downs syndrome or severe autism give it up for adoption!

With all the healthy babies that are put up for adoption, why would any prospective parent adopt a baby with downs syndrome? Besides all the problems that child is going to saddle the parents with, I can only imagine how that kid is going to feel when it finds out its birth parents gave it up due to its condition! 

4. There are some people that will read this then look at your life and say it is a very subpar quality of life, should your mother have aborted you?

Congrats on using the “debate by hurling insults” method! For starters, I’m not perfect (no one is), but I am a healthy individual who stands a good chance of improving myself at any time to get things that I want or simply put myself in a better situation. People with downs syndrome or severe autism don’t have that chance.

5. Just because the baby was conceived through rape does not make it any less valuable, why make it pay for its father’s crime?

Okay so…. Let’s force the woman to go through a pregnancy she never asked for, then if she lives in a state that passed misogynistic laws she’ll be forced to grant the rapist visitation rights. So in other words, let’s make the woman pay for the crime of the rapist. You’re so right! *Note sarcasm.*

BTW, about the visitation rights thing….

After doing a little more research into this, there are no particular “laws” that grant a rapist visitation rights, but rather 31 (!) states that do not have any laws on the books preventing a rapist visitation or even trying for custody. So in essence, those 31 states need to act like the other 19 and sign laws banning these unwanted sperm donors from ruining their victim’s life any further!

Which brings us to a comment on one of those news sites about this issue, I kid you not:

6. The reason for the lack of laws in certain states to prevent visitation or custody demands by rapists is because some women cry rape to block the father from seeing his child. How is that fair to him?

Let me tell you, when I read that it made my blood boil. People who make statements like this are the reason why over half of rapes go unreported, because women know that in many cases they are in for more punishment than the actual attacker. The person who wrote this should be ashamed of himself.

7. In your parental consent scenario, if the daughter wasn’t such a slut she wouldn’t get pregnant! Time for her to face the music!

When you were a teenager, how many dumb things did you do out of impulse? If your answer is “none,” then you’re a fucking liar. This is another case of “love the fetus hate the woman,” that is you would rather see a 15 year old girl with a full life ahead of her possibly die in childbirth just because of a mistake she made.

8. Parental consent laws were put in place to curb teen pregnancies. If teens know that their parents may refuse an abortion they are less likely to have sex. You do know that, right?

Yeah, I do know that. But in the process it also causes religious fanatics to refuse their children proper medical care. I am pretty sure that in the scenario I mentioned, her daughter’s health and well being trump’s the parent’s allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky.

9. In response to that Nebraska teen who threw her baby out the window, there are safe heaven laws set up so a woman who gave birth to an unwanted child can drop it off at any fire station or hospital. She could have done that, but let’s say you’re right, why is she having sex if she knew her mother would refuse an abortion?

I was actually going to agree with this until you made that ridiculous comment “why is she having sex?” See below as to why….

----

Allow me to interrupt the rebuttals as there is a comment I see plenty of times whenever the abortion topic is brought up:

“You make your choice when you spread your legs and have sex, don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex!”

See, I have a big problem with this comment. If I am in a healthy relationship with my significant other, who are you (in a general sense) to tell me that I should not have sex with her and who are you to tell her that she should not have sex with me? Secondly, notice how this comment is usually aimed at insulting the woman, but nothing is usually said to the man? Last I heard it takes two people to get a woman pregnant!

Yes, we know that pregnancy is the biggest risk to sex. But we like doing it because it is a basic human need that has to be satisfied. That is why abstinence doesn’t work. Same reason why the D.A.R.E program is a failure. When you tell someone not to do something, the first thing they are going do is, well, do it.

It’s the same thing with driving. Lots of people drive to work every day knowing that there is a risk of getting into a crash that could leave them severely injured and unable to work, but drive anyway.

Would you tell a person this? “If you know full well that you can’t afford to get injured in a crash either find a job that lets you work from home or take the bus every day!”

No, because it’s stupid!

The thing is that both have risks, but so do a lot of other things. Running into risks are a fact of life.

Now I know that people are going to say “condoms!”

Now I know that birth control like condoms are not 100%. I consider birth control to be like modern safety features on new cars, just because they are there doesn’t mean that they are going to prevent you from getting injured or killed in an accident.

For that….. there’s always the morning after pill.

----

Now back to my regularly scheduled rebuttals:

These two are intended for what I wrote above:

10. Sorry bro, sex is intended for one thing: procreation. NOT pleasure as people like you seem to think it’s for. We’re the only species in the animal kingdom that thinks that sex is for pleasure.

I must remind you that the only people who seem to spout this nonsense are the ones who belong to the cult known as the Catholic Church (Yeah I called it a cult, you have a problem with that?). The same church that was under a child sex abuse scandal, mind you. Think about this for a moment: If sex was really “just for procreation” then why do we have a whole damn industry dedicated to making products to enhance the pleasure of sexual intercourse and also prevent pregnancy? Yes, I do get that we are the only species that does use sex for pleasure but that’s simply because we’re more evolved than other animal species out there.

11. Food, water and shelter is a basic need. Not sex. Some people go many years without sex.

Bill Mahar touched on someone like this a couple of years ago in his “new rules” segment (Skip to the 1:56 mark if you must).

I know that most people probably won’t go on mass shooting sprees, but let’s face it, if you go too long without sex you tend to be a bit…. Hostile…. And not the type that a Snickers will resolve either.

12. Men should have a say in the matter if their girlfriend/wife is going to get an abortion. Secondly, if a man is abusive why is she having sex with him?

No he shouldn’t because it’s not his fucking body, simple as that! As to your second question, I really hope you’re kidding about that. Refusing sex to a person who is abusive oftentimes makes the situation worse; any woman who was in an abusive relationship can tell you that. For a woman in this situation it’s literally either tolerate the man’s dick for the night or refuse and get beat up. Oh by the way, one thing that abusive men will sometimes do is use things like condoms that have been intentionally tampered with to trick a woman into what she thinks is safe sex to get her pregnant and tie her down to him. THAT is why requiring a father’s permission for an abortion is a really bad idea.

---

Now I will admit something…. Most of my rebuttals are based on things I read online or listen to in person from people who object to a person’s stance on topics like mine. This next rebuttal was said to me right to my face when I told him my stance on abortion if a test for autism existed:

“Do yourself a favor and please never have kids because if this is how you feel it’s clear that you are not ready mentally or emotionally to have even a healthy child, much less one with downs syndrome or autism.”

This just proves my theory: That “conservatives” (which is what this person identifies as) like to debate by hurling insults. Who the fuck is he to tell me I’m not ready to have kids just because I am pro-choice?

---

For the “overturn Roe Vs Wade” crowd….

For the people who want to see abortion totally outlawed in the name of whatever fairy tale or cult they have allegiance to, I’ll give you El Salvador. Abortion is illegal there – it doesn’t matter if a woman is raped or if it’s needed to save the mother’s life, it simply cannot be performed.

Even worse, women there are jailed for simply having a miscarriage or stillbirths!

What angered me is this paragraph here from the above linked article:

"El Salvador's abortion law gained international attention in 2013 with the case of a woman identified publicly as Beatriz.

Beatriz, a 22-year-old peasant, suffered from lupus and was several months pregnant with her second child when the fetus was diagnosed with anencephaly, meaning it would be born without part of the brain and could not survive. Doctors determined that her own medical condition made carrying the baby to term a threat to Beatriz's life.

She appealed all the way to the Supreme Court to be allowed to terminate her pregnancy, but her petition was denied, in effect ordering her to carry to term a baby that would not live and might instead kill her. Ultimately, in a de facto compromise, she was given a caesarean section in June 2013, when the fetus was 27 weeks. The baby died five hours later. Beatriz today continues to recover."

Yep – they forced a woman to carry an unviable fetus to term that dies anyway hours after “birth” and leaves her permanently scarred and is still not fully recovered to this day. All of this to pacify the pricks at the Catholic Church/Cult. I swear, I fucking hate religion.

But back to the ridiculous part about the miscarriages. Let’s say Roe V Wade is overturned and states like Alabama or Mississippi immediately sign laws to criminalize abortion. How long will it take for a woman to have a miscarriage or stillbirth, be accused of intentionally causing it and jailed for it?

Because when you criminalize abortion…. It doesn’t stop at abortions. Miscarriages and stillbirths in places like El Salvador are often blamed on the woman so some sort of criminal charge is placed on her.  Because it's not really about abortions, it's about hating women.

This cannot happen in America. Not in 2017…. Not ever.

Read this line from the article I posted above: “The World Health Organization estimates that more than 35,000 women in El Salvador obtain unsafe, clandestine abortions every year.”

With that said…. Why hasn’t one of our well-known millionaires/billionaires offered to fly a woman from El Salvador to the US to have the abortion performed if it’s required to save her life and then fly her back home afterwards? Stray question I know…. But it’s worth a thought!

El Salvador is a small country, mind you. If abortion was made illegal here in the US the line might read, “The World Health Organization estimates that more than 5,000,000 women in the US obtain unsafe, clandestine abortions every year.”

Think about that for a moment. In addition, this is what might happen if abortion is criminalized:

1. Women will be throwing their newborn babies in dumpsters / trash cans or out windows.

2. Women will be taking an “accidental” fall down the stairs or “trip” over something and “by chance” fall on their belly.

3. Child abuse cases will skyrocket as mothers who are forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term will treat the kid like shit.

4. Women will be traveling out of state to get their abortions, totally rendering laws in their home state useless anyway.

PS: Before anyone says "Then states should make laws prohibiting this," what are they going to do, ask every woman who crosses state lines if they're pregnant?

5. Even worse, they will pull a Casey Anthony and pretend to be a loving devoted mother for the camera than one day snap and kill the poor kid.

6. Women who can’t afford to travel to a state that keeps it legal will have “hotel room” or “back alley” abortions where their life will be in danger.

7. For women that maintain a rational mind and use what is known as a “safe haven” law, fire stations will probably have to hire dedicated people just to handle the influx of babies being dropped off there.

8. The next one deserves its own special explanation if Roe V Wade is overturned….

Let’s say there is a 17 year old girl named Lisa. She works a low-wage job at a supermarket. She is in a healthy relationship with her boyfriend and yes, they have sex. Despite them taking all the precautions – birth control, condoms, etc – Lisa gets pregnant. Lisa cannot afford to be raising a child at this stage of her life. However, her state criminalized abortion since Roe V Wade was overturned so she runs the risk of being jailed for having one. She cannot afford to travel out of state either and she does not want to run the risk of going to a shady “doctor” to do a hotel room or back alley abortion….

….Fast forward 9 months. Lisa gives birth to her baby. Her boyfriend gets freaked out and runs off, leaving her to take care of it alone. Lisa ends up going on public assistance like welfare, WIC and section 8. Other people find out she is on public assistance to help raise her child, the same ones who pushed to have abortion criminalized. Those same people tell her, “Why did you have sex knowing you might get pregnant,” “I can’t believe my tax dollars are going to a woman who couldn’t keep her legs closed,” “You’re being a drain on the welfare system,” “You should have been responsible instead of being a slut” and other phrases.

That is what gets me about the pro-life crowd: They want so bad to force a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term then hurl nothing but insults when she has to go on public assistance to help her raise said child.

----

Conclusion….

I could write something about this, or I could just show you this George Carlin video:

I have already explained the scenarios as to why abortion needs to stay legal and easy to access. I have already shot down the rebuttals given to me. But let me tell you something about the pro-life crowd….

They are not really pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once a baby is born they don’t give two shits about it. It they really cared, they wouldn’t be trying to cut programs like welfare, WIC and other types of public assistance. If they cared they would pass laws making school lunches free instead of letting some kids go hungry in schools. If they cared they wouldn’t be cutting after-school programs. They don’t care if a fetus might kill the mother if carried to term leaving the women’s boyfriend/husband to raise the child as single dad. They don’t care about the woman, only the fetus. Really, as George Carlin alluded to pro-life people only care about children once they reach the age where they can join the military and be sent off to war.

It’s not even about the abortion. “Pro-life” people just want to exert control over women’s bodies. This is heavily apparent when that asshole congressman in Oklahoma called women “hosts.” Which leads us to….

Look at the hypothetical scenario with “Lisa” a few paragraphs above. Most of the insults aimed at her are based on sex. Most pro-life people are upset that there are women who have sex for pleasure and not for procreation. They can’t grasp the thought that this is not the dark ages and sex can be used for excitement, joy and overall fun. Again, like George Carlin alluded to “pro-life” people look at women as nothing more than brood mares who should only be penetrated when they are ready to start a family. Pro-life people literally lash out at modern women for having sex for pleasure rather than procreation. That’s a problem in 2017.

As I wrote earlier in the “For the ‘overturn Roe Vs Wade’ crowd” section, criminalizing abortion will not just stop at abortions and create a whole slew of problems. We’ll become El Salvador where a woman has a miscarriage or stillborn and the state she’s in will accuse her of causing it and try her for murder. We’ll be seeing all the things I listed and more, not to mention women being insulted if they end up keeping the baby and going on public assistance…. for simply having sex.

All this…. Because some people’s allegiance to a damn fairy tale of a mythical deity in the sky.

I am done.